Child Fell on Fruit in Supermarket
15/06/2009Can a child who fell on yoghurt in a supermarket claim for injury compensation?
A child injury accident due to a fall or slip in a supermarket are not uncommon. It has been well know law for years that anyone who has slipped on any spillages on the floor in a supermarket can be entitled to compensation for the injuries sustained. Usually such injuries are minor but many slips and falls can be serious often giving rise to fractures and dislocations.
The main issue when a child slips on some substance on a shop floor for instance water, yoghurt, fruit which has been left on the floor for some time is whether the shop or supermarket owners have a regular system of cleaning. A robust cleaning regime where employees regularly look for spillages on the floor to avoid a tripping or slipping hazard are likely to defend a slipping claim by a child or adult who may have hurt themselves.
What constitutes blame, or in law negligence is a question of fact in each case. The higher the standard of care in cleaning up spillages and removing obstacles the less of a chance the infant claimant will have to succeed in a claim for compensation for the injuries sustained. However the shop or supermarket will have to prove the system of maintenance by showing diary logs of the cleaning undertaken. If the employees can no longer be traced providing proof in support may prove difficult.
The infant child will have to prove, through the child’s parents and injury solicitors that the shop or supermarket did not have an effective and reasonable system of maintenance and it was as a direct result of this lack of duty of care that resulted in the accident.
In a well know case to all personal injury solicitors the case of Ward v Tesco Stores (1976) is always cited in slipping and tripping claims in shops and supermarkets. In this case a customer of Tesco’s slipped on some yoghurt that had been on the supermarket floor for some time and had not been cleaned. The Court of Appeal decided upon the case and was of the view that shops and supermarkets had a very high standard of care to their customers and it was for them to show that the injured person (or child) did not sustain injury due to their lack of care. In the case the evidence was that:
- The shop/supermarket brushed the floor half a dozen times a day
- Any staff noticing spillages was to call for its removal and that staff would remain on guard by the spillage until cleared
Notwithstanding the above the Court of Appeal said that it was not enough. They failed to spot the spillage in time, they had enough time had they had a better cleaning system in place and at the end of the day they had not cleared up the spillage in time. It was as a direct result of their failings that they had caused the injury. The Claimant had won the case.
The fact that the accident happened to an adult does not matter. In a similar situation if the accident happened to a child the child was also succeed in a claim for compensation for the injuries sustained.
Our web site provides you with several means of contacting us.
Please Click Here To Our Child Injury Contact Page
Regulated By The Solicitors Regulation Authority
Child accident and injury solicitors
